Understanding what is contextual and what central in scripture

[Bhagavatam class at ISKCON, Melbourne, Australia]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
We are discussing on Prithviraj’s prayers to Lord Vishnu after the Lord has appeared in the sacrificial arena. And I will speak on the topic of understanding what is contextual and what is central in scripture. That in scripture, there are certain things just spoken according to particular contexts.
So what is contextual and what is central? What is the universal message of scripture? So I’ll speak this in three broad parts. We’ll look at the context of what is being spoken here and how the context today is different. Then I’ll speak about how the central message of scripture is universally relevant.
And the last point will be how we can communicate this central message effectively to ourselves as well as to others. So here, the verse itself, I can just hold it other ways. Hare Krishna.
Thank you. Am I audible now? So focus on understanding the first point, understand the context of the Bhagavatam. So the verse itself is saying that, My dear Lord, your words are bewildering for the devotees.
And people in general are caught by the words of the Vedas which promise material fruits. But the devotees are not enamoured. So the purport is focussing on this theme that we don’t get attracted by the worldly benefits that are promised in the Vedas.
And Prabhupada quotes, They are all like poison for the ultimate aspiration of the soul. So now, generally, whether it is the Bhagavad Gita or the Bhagavatam, or even the Chaitanya Charita Amrit, if we consider, they are broadly spoken for people who are in sattva, in goodness, to raise them towards shuddha sattva. Towards, take them towards pure goodness.
Parikshit Maharaj had lived a life which was devoted to dharma. And he was also devoted. He was, of course, a devotee.
But he was living a very pious, virtuous, principled life. Arjuna was also a very pious, principled, glorious, dharmic person. But how somebody who is in sattva can rise to shuddha sattva? That is what the scripture stresses.
And for that purpose, often in the scripture, sattva is minimised. Because as compared to pure goodness, as compared to pure devotion, so we could call it as pure devotion and virtue, morality, ethics, virtue, a life of sattva is minimised in scripture because its focus is on pure devotion. And we see this most dramatically in the Chaitanya Charita Amrit and the Chaitanya Bhagavatam.
If you look at Indian history, at that time, in the 15th, 16th centuries, India was overrun by Islamic rulers. And many of them were, most of them, in fact, were iconoclasts. They were desecrating the cities, destroying temples.
And the particular king who was ruling in Bengal, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared. He was also quite a tyrannical king. And yet, when Chaitanya Bhagavatam is saying that, oh, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu descended because society was so degraded.
And what is Chaitanya Bhagavatam’s reference point for degradation? It is saying that people would read the Bhagavatam, but they would never talk about bhakti. People would go to the temples, but they would only worship Shashti and other goddesses. People would bathe in the Ganga, but only at that time they would chant the names of Vishnu.
Now, today, if you meet people who are like this, very nice person, oh, you are already reading the Bhagavatam? Very good. Or you go and bathe in the Ganga regularly? Very good. If somebody is worshipping some devatas also, how many, most people are atheistic, materialistic.
So, we would consider this to be very good. The Bhagavatam, Chaitanya Bhagavatam, Chaitanya Chaitanya Chaitanya Chaitanya Chaitanya Tamrut, they are not talking about how so many temples are being desecrated and so many deities are being, have to be taken away from here to there. They mention that, but that is not the reference point.
Now, what that means is that, of course, people who were very degraded were also elevated by Lord Shaitanya Mahaprabhu, like Jagga Yama Dai were there, like even some Muslims were there. But the thrust is to raise somebody from goodness to pure goodness. It is like say, it is to raise somebody who is a graduate to the doctorate level.
But, if we consider today’s context, people have not even entered kindergarten. What to speak of going from graduate to the post graduate level? So, most people are not even following the basic principles of morality. Most people, the Bhagavatam talks about how family attachment is to be given up because it is an obstacle in the spiritual path.
Now, the problem today is people have no family attachment. Not because they are above attachment, they are below attachment. Attachment also requires some commitment, some taking of responsibility.
So, if we consider, the soul has to evolve in selflessness. Say, somebody is, in Tamas, a person is concerned only about oneself. I want everything for myself, let the world go to hell.
So, in Tamas, people become I-specialists. Not E-Y-E-I, but I, big I. So, completely self-obsessed. And there is this English word called narcissistic.
So, some people, narcissistic means obsessively self-centred. Self-centred to the point of being self-destructive. So, that comes from Greek mythology, where there was a character named Narcissus, who looked very attractive.
And he was very fond of looking at himself, his reflection. So, one day he was passing by a river, and he just looked down, and peered down, and he looked, oh, I look so nice. And he peered down more, and he peered down more, and he peered so much, that he slipped and fell into the river.
And he did no swimming. So, out of his anxiety to look at his reflection, he drowned himself, eventually. He died.
So, people who are narcissistic are like that. They are completely self-centred. So, when somebody is in Tamas, actually even rages.
Even if a person gets attracted to someone, attached to someone, at least by stopping that self-centred, they start getting a little concerned about the other person. And then, eventually, when they come in a stable relationship, they commit themselves, that brings them to a little bit of Sattva. Okay, I have got children, I have got family, I will take care of myself.
So, Sattva is definitely better than Tamas. And if a person is self-centred, whereas that person is concerned even about one’s own family, that is good. Now, of course, for us souls to evolve spiritually, our consciousness needs to expand further.
Not just up to the family, it has to expand further and further, till it ultimately comes to Krishna. So, from Tamas, Rages and Sattva are better, actually. From Sattva, Shuddha Sattva is much, much better.
But, what happens is, scripture says that, that give up Sattva to take Shuddha Sattva. So, we may end up thinking that Sattva is unimportant. Sattva is useless.
So, sometimes, when we as devotees talk about the worship of the Devatas, talk about demigod worship. Sometimes, we use the word also so scornfully, that I was at one class in America. What is this demigod? Because most people, before coming to the Krishna Consciousness Movement, they haven’t heard the word demigods.
Even people who are born in an Indian context, in a Hindu family. Do you mean a demon? So, sometimes, the way we speak the word demigod also is so scornfully, like demon. Sometimes, to speak, the word demigod is sounding like a demon.
We may not only trivialise the worship of Devatas, we may even demonise it. Now, worshipping the Devatas is also in Sattva, broadly speaking. At least, one is following Shastra.
And that requires some amount of Sattva. Now, of course, we want to go up from Sattva to Shuddha Sattva. But, the important thing is, that condemnation of the worship of certain Devatas, the condemnation of certain things, that may be given in scripture.
But, that is not the central teaching of the scripture. The central teaching of scripture is, that we have to move towards Krishna. We have to move towards attaining Krishna.
So, if you see, Prabhupada’s purports, he focusses primarily, he doesn’t go too much into the intricacies of the Bhagavatams, this verse and this verse, what is the flow, the Gita, this verse and this verse, what is the flow. He gives some hints. But, he focusses on the essential principles.
Because, what is required for elevating people. So, we could say that, Prabhupada doesn’t just give us pure devotional principles. He actually gives us what will take us from Tamas towards pure devotion.
So, because scripture focusses on taking people from Sattva to Shuddha Sattva. So, even the Vedas may sometimes get minimised in scripture. But, the Vedas means the Karmakanda part of the Vedas, the material benefits.
But, these are, if somebody is doing that, that is also good. Because, that is bringing them to goodness. From the perspective of Shuddha Sattva, that is not good.
But, from, say, the perspective of Rajas or Tamas, coming to Sattva is good. And, understanding this, we won’t trivialise or demonise things. Sometimes, as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, we think, our goal is Golopurnaval.
And then, we may think, we may even trash and trivialise Vaikuntha. Yes, Vaikuntha is just like my backyard. I don’t want to go there.
Vaikuntha is a spiritual world. Somebody who goes there is liberated. So, when certain comparisons are done within a particular context, if we don’t understand the context, we may just start criticising things which are also praiseworthy.
They may not be ultimately praiseworthy. But, overall, for the general mass of people, to become pious in any way, to come to Sattva in any way, is good. Now, of course, we don’t want ourselves or others to be stuck at Sattva.
We want them to rise towards Shuddha Sattva. So, Karmakanda and Gyanakanda, which are given in scripture, are meant to elevate people towards Sattva. So, broadly speaking, Karmakanda helps people to develop some faith in scripture and come up.
So, when there is contextual criticism, that criticism should not be quoted out of context. In a particular context, the Karmakanda section of the scriptures is considered not recommendable. But, it is Krishna only who has given us scripture.
And therefore, it is he only who has given us. So, when contextual criticism is quoted out of context, it does a disservice. And when we understand the context properly, then we understand what is the purpose of the scripture.
So, suppose there is like a writer, a good author, and a top-notch editor. And the top-notch editor reviews the writing of this author and says, this is not right, you have not done this well, you have not done this properly, not done this properly. And somebody who has no knowledge of writing, somebody has no knowledge of how good this writer is, that person reads this review, says, this person can’t even write anything.
This person might already be a published writer. But from the perspective of that author and that editor, the editor is giving room for improvement. It is contextual criticism.
The book could even be published as it is. But the editor’s criticism, if he has taken it, can make the book even better. So, if we take contextual criticism out of context and absolutise it, then we misunderstand things ourselves and we cause others also to misunderstand things.
We misrepresent the broad spirit of the scripture. So, that was the first point, that contextual criticism should not be quoted out of context. Any comments or reflections or questions about this? Does this apply to our editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books? It is a volatile question.
In general, the important thing is Prabhupada told his editors to present things in good quality English. So, that was Prabhupada’s instruction. The editors are trying to follow that.
Some people feel that they have exceeded their brief and some people feel that they are doing what they are meant to do. Prabhupada himself was very pragmatic. And if certain sections were objectionable, there was a section in his first canto, purport, where Prabhupada is talking about negros.
He is talking about how the male-female attraction is there in all species in a purport. He says it is in animals, it is in hogs, it is in dogs. It is also in people who are considered degraded by human society, such as negros, who are considered, they also think that there is something attractive in the member, something like that, Prabhupada says.
So, now when Satsvarupa Maharaj was editing it, he said, Prabhupada, we cannot publish something like this. And he said, this will create a furor among people. And Prabhupada heard him out and said, okay, remove it.
So, Prabhupada is okay about such things. Prabhupada had a central message and Prabhupada had a style which was confrontational overall. If there was a confrontation, Prabhupada would not back out from it.
But if a confrontation was not productive, Prabhupada would not stick to it. They have this confrontation, but it does not work, just move on to other things. So, overall how to go about things, that is something which you have to carefully think about.
But in general, it is our responsibility to make sure that Prabhupada’s central message is not obscured by certain passing statements, which he has made, which may be inflammatory, which may be agitating for some people. So, how we go about doing that, that requires discussion, that requires some deep amount of consultation, meditation. But overall, we have to take responsibility for presenting Prabhupada’s message, central message in such a way that his central message comes through and passing statements do not obscure that.
So, the second point I was going to make is, first point was that the contextual criticism taken out of context can actually misrepresent. Now, second point is that, how do we understand what is the central message of scripture? Now, if we consider, there are many ways, but broadly speaking, we could look at what is stressed the most, what is repeated the most, what is spoken in the beginning, what is spoken in the end, and what is indicated as the fruit, as a result. These are some criteria which is given in the Tattva Sandarbha by G. V. Goswami, where he says that, what is spoken in the beginning of a scripture? Just like somebody is giving a class, if you consider, scripture is basically conversation, which has been later on written down.
So, if somebody is giving a class, they may tell right in the beginning, this is what I spoke. Or, maybe at the end, they may tell, this is what I spoke on. So, what comes in the beginning, what comes in the end? Then, you can see, what is repeated the most? Some point is repeated from this angle, that angle, that angle, that is an important point.
What is spoken most emphatically? And, what is, what is, you could say, what is given as the phala-shruti? Now, this itself is a very elaborate subject, and we could have a whole class on this, but let me quickly apply this broadly to the Bhagavad Gita. To understand, what is the central message? See, many people, the Bhagavad Gita is a very good example of how the contextual can easily distract people from the central. The Bhagavad Gita is spoken on a battlefield, and nowadays, people are very leery about violence happening in the name of religion.
And, because of leftist propaganda, often, they try to demonise all religions, and Hinduism and Islam are often put on the same level. Now, Islam has religious violence, and Hindus also have religious violence. Now, historically speaking, the violence that Hindus have committed is negligible, if at all there.
But, they say that the Bhagavad Gita is a book which incites people towards violence. However, that is not, that is not, the context is there, Arjun had to fight a war, but if you look at the content, let us apply these criteria. We see, what is the question that starts the Bhagavad Gita? Arjun is asking, I want to know what is Dharma.
He is not saying, I do not, he just earlier said, I do not want to fight the war. But, central question is not whether I should fight or should not fight. What is my duty? What am I meant to do in life? That is the question.
Then, if we look at the end, the end is not, therefore, you fight Arjun. Surrender to me. If you look at what Arjun also says, Arjun is saying, I will do your will.
He is not saying, I will fight. Only in that particular context, Krishna’s will happens to be that you will fight. But, the essential message is, what is Dharma? That is the question, answer is, to do God’s will.
That is Dharma. So, there can be many different Dharmas, but there can be many different Dharmas, but all Dharmas are subordinate to the ultimate Dharma of doing God’s will, of doing what Krishna wants us to do. Then, if we look at what is emphasised the most, then we will see, emphasis can come through rhetoric, it can come through, again, repetition, it can come through tone.
So, we do not have the tone, but we can see that towards the end, Krishna is so overwhelmingly affectionate, assuring you, if you do this, I will free you from all sinful reactions. You are dearly loved by me, that I am going to tell you the most confidential truth, because you are most dear to me, because I want your benefit. So, what Krishna is stressing is the devotional essence.
Krishna is not talking about the war. As far as repetition is concerned, we see, what is repeated is, always remember me. If you remember me, you will attain me.
So, it is, ma anusmara, and that theme, ma me vishyasi, that theme is repeated so many times. There is nowhere in the Gita, that even once, Krishna mentions all the atrocities that the Kauravas have performed against the Pandavas. Normally, in the Bhagavad Gita, we are calling to violence.
Then you tell, remember he had done like this to you, remember he had done like that to you, now therefore fight. But not even once, any of the atrocities are mentioned. It’s amazing.
It’s astounding how much the Bhagavad Gita rises above its context to a universal level of discussion. In fact, one of the most intolerable incidents for the Pandavas was the insult of Draupadi. And, in the whole Bhagavad Gita, Draupadi is mentioned only once.
And that is, when he is referring to Abhimanyu’s film, Draupadeyashya. Krishna doesn’t even mention that Draupadi was dishonoured, and therefore you have to take revenge. Nothing.
So, like this, if we apply the beginning, the end, the, what is emphasised, what is repeated, we will see, the devotion, that is the essence. So, if somebody takes the context and says, come on, the Bhagavad Gita is a book calling for war. They are misunderstanding.
So, just as we can unfurl the context, similarly, if we look at scripture, the essential message is that we all need to devote ourselves to Krishna. We all need to practise Krishna Bhakti. And we all need to ultimately attain Krishna.
So, this is the central message. And Prabhupada himself has said, the success of Krishna consciousness movement is when people learn to love Krishna. When people chant Hare Krishna, when people practise Bhakti.
So, there are so many times when Prabhupada has made it clear what his purpose is. So, scripture is like an ocean. And there are many, many things present in scripture, but we have to focus on that which is central.
And by focussing on the central, we ensure that people do not get distracted by things which are contextual, which might be a little more difficult for them to accept. So, whenever we give any, whenever we share anything with others, we focus on, okay, what is the central thing? And how can I share that with others? So, that was the second point. The central message of scripture is the message of pure devotion to Krishna.
By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Any comments or questions? So, yes, please. So, in the Ramayana, it is said that Rama and Lakshmana ate meat.
And if yes, and if you say that is not context, that is just contextual, do not focus on that, then what people say that you are neglecting part of scripture that does not agree with what you believe or whatever. Well, there are different ways of looking at it. We will look at it both ways.
In the word mamsa, or similar words in scripture, they have multiple meanings. And there are scholars of Ramayana, there is an article on my website, did Rama eat meat, where there is Sanskrit etymology, that actually that word, whatever words are used in Ramayana in that context, they can very well refer to a particular pulp of a vegetable, which looks like meat. And there are Ramayana commentators who have also explained it in that way.
So, it is not that Ram ate meat. It is just that, that he ate a particular food item, which was like meat. There are, and another state where it comes, there are not many statements where this kind of thing comes, only once or twice it comes.
So, one way we could look at it is to say that actually it means something else. And that is in terms of linguistics defensible. But even if you take the other way around, Prabhupada asked this question that Ram ate meat, did Ram eat meat? Prabhupada said, he is God, he can do anything.
Krishna ate a whole forest fire. So, can you eat forest fire? He said, if you can eat forest fire, then you can eat meat also. So, we have to know from scripture, which actions of the Lord are meant for us to imitate, and which are not to be imitated.
So, even if he ate meat, that does not mean that we are meant to eat meat. Another point is, which is I would say the most important, is that Ram, he is God, but when he comes to this world, he comes as a Kshatriya. And Kshatriyas often have to go on war campaigns.
And if you are going to vast tracts of jungles and forests, there one may not get grains to eat. See, the sages in the forest can live on fruits and vegetables. And they can nourish their body enough to perform austerities and grow spiritual.
But Kshatriyas are meant to fight. And fighting requires some solidly nourishing food. If a huge army is going, or even a Kshatriya alone is going as a spy or a lone attacker, as you call, then the Kshatriya cannot be boldened by carrying huge stacks of grains with him.
The army cannot always carry grains. Even now, with so much sophisticated technology available, still food supply for army is a big challenge. The army is way away from the base camp, basement, from the base of the country.
So, because Kshatriyas have to go on war campaigns, and because the particular work that they need to do cannot be done simply by eating fruits and shoots and stuff like that. And grains are not easily available or carryable. See, grains require conscious cultivation.
You have to do agriculture. Therefore, Kshatriyas are allowed to eat meat. Kshatriyas, because in a particular, their particular service puts them in situations where the food that is nourishing enough for their service may not be available.
So, they can’t take meat. Now, the important thing is that eating meat once is very different, or eating meat once or occasionally is very different from opening slaughterhouses where millions of animals are killed. So, meat, people have always been eating meat throughout history.
In the Bhagavatam also says that meat eating, intoxication and illicit sex, these are the ways of common people. But those who want to grow spiritually, they should avoid these things. For most people, this is the pravakti, this is the inclination of them.
But those who can give this up, they can get great fruit. So, Kshatriyas in particular context, eating meat is very different from making meat a central daily part and a major part of the diet and establishing organised slaughterhouses to kill millions of animals. So, if you see, nature has also given us canine teeth.
By canine teeth, we can actually eat some meat. But out of all the teeth, there are only a small number of those teeth. That indicates if at all somebody is to eat meat, that has to be like a minor portion.
It can’t be the major portion of the diet. So, overall, depending on what a person is coming through, the first explanation that it has a secondary meaning. And that’s the reasonable explanation that many people make.
But somebody is very adamant about it. Then if that person is still having some shraddha that Ram is God, then we can go to the second explanation. Somebody is very sceptical that he can do something.
But we can’t. But if somebody is not very sceptical, then the third explanation can be given. That Ram is a Kshatriya.
So, whenever God descends into this world, if he descends in a particular role, then he often does activities according to that role. So, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was of the Brahmana family. And he lived as a Brahmana.
Lord Krishna or Lord Ram decided in the Kshatriya family. They lived as Kshatriyas. So, Kshatriyas are allowed to do particular things in particular contexts.
So, the last point now, that we need to ensure that the contextual doesn’t obstruct us or others from the central. So, when we practise bhakti and when we share bhakti, it’s often possible that we may emphasise certain things which actually are not very important for people. What that means is that, say when people come new to bhakti, Indians especially are more interested in worship than the object of worship.
That means they’ll go to a temple and they’ll fold their hands and pray very fervently. And then they close their eyes, pray. And if you look at them praying, I don’t pray like this.
But then when they’re going out, they will ask, who is there on the altar? So, actually, for many people, worship is more important than the object of worship. There’s one devotee friend of mine in Canada. So, he just moved to a particular locality and he invited his neighbours for kirtan.
And they had nice Hare Krishna kirtan at his place. And then, now these neighbours were worshippers of a particular holy man in India. So, we have demigods and we have semi-gods.
Semi-god is what? Say me god. I am god. So, they were doing this godman’s kirtan.
And they invited him there. So, he was thinking, I don’t want to go for such a kirtan. But it’s courtesy.
They came for my programme at my house, how can I say no? So, he went there and initially they were doing that kirtan. And then his son plays Rudanga very nicely and this devotee also sings very nicely. So, they said, can he play Rudanga? Can he also sing, your son sing? He said, yes, but he knows only Krishna bhajans.
He said, okay, sing Krishna bhajans. And so, for 10 minutes they were having that particular godman’s name’s kirtan. And for the next two hours, they were just having Krishna kirtans.
And it was wonderful. So, now, for them, they just wanted kirtans. And for them, Krishna also, it’s okay.
So, if instead, this is not god, you are worshipping them, it’s a demoniac, it’s foolish, it’s ignorant, anybody who claims to be god is a dog and all that thing if he had said, it would create a permanent rupture. So, for people, there is a time when they need to be educated about certain things. But there is a time for connection and there is a time for education.
First, we need to just connect with people at a human level. People feel that it’s a nice person. And then when we connect with them at a human level, then gradually, that connection can lead to elevation.
So, yes, we don’t want to, when we focus on the principle of pure devotion, we don’t recommend the worship of the devatas. But if somebody is worshipping devatas, and they’re also worshipping Krishna, at least they’re open to the worship of Krishna, and we encourage them in the worship of Krishna. Later on, they can come to pure devotion.
We cannot come to pure devotion without coming to devotion first. So, even if somebody is worshipping a devata, at that time, it may not be necessary to tell them, don’t worship the devata. What is necessary? Just tell them, start worshipping Krishna.
And if they come in the association of Krishna devotees, just by seeing the association of Krishna devotees, they start worshipping Krishna more and more. And that’s what will bring them further to Krishna. So, there are many issues like this which are incidental.
They are not central to our message. So, it may be, say, issues like the moon mission. Prabhupada made a certain statement about about man’s going to the moon.
It may be about certain scientific theories. It may be about certain kinds of worship. Now, we have to see how important is this issue for a particular person.
See, when Prabhupada was there, at that time, the moon issue was very much in the news. And people were very captivated by it. Oh, we will go to the moon, and we’ll conquer space, and we’ll do this, and we’ll do that.
And Prabhupada’s stress was primarily, don’t get so excited about it. Nothing special is going to happen by that. So, Prabhupada often takes a very non-committal attitude towards it.
In the Bhagavad Gita introduction, he says that we have endeavoured very hard to go to the moon, but we have not endeavoured to raise our consciousness. We have endeavoured to raise ourselves to the moon, but we have not endeavoured to raise our consciousness. The Bhagavad Gita will provide means to raise our consciousness.
So, important thing for Prabhupada is that we raise our consciousness. So, at that time, when people were so captivated, oh, we went to the moon, we were going to go to the moon, we went to the moon, Prabhupada’s father don’t get so excited about it. Now, today, if we talk about it, say, man, so and so thing happened, we make certain statements about the moon, then people may get more agitated.
You think like this? How is it possible? I can’t believe this. And ultimately, whether we went to the moon or not is not as important as whether we should go to Godhead or not. That is the central purpose.
So, sometimes something which we speak it, that agitates people, and that makes them close to Krishnapati. So, Prabhupada, especially on many occasions, on many issues, Prabhupada has made multiple statements. So, sometimes Prabhupada said that we didn’t go to the moon.
Sometimes we went out, but we didn’t go to the moon. We went to some other, not to the moon. Sometimes Prabhupada said that we went to the moon, but we didn’t access the moon.
So, sometimes what happens, we take the most confrontational statement of Prabhupada and make that as a standard and say, unless you accept this, you are not faithful. Now, if Prabhupada has made multiple statements, then we have to see which statement is most useful for people to connect with Krishna. So, by, if we focus too much on that which is contextual, that may agitate people so much that they get alienated from the central.
So, focus on the central, not the contextual. And what is contextual? Just downplay it. Just downplay it.
By which people can come, focus straight on the central and come towards the central. And that requires intelligence. So, intelligence means to know what is contextual and speak it according to whether it’s relevant for the particular context.
I’ll conclude with one example for this, that in Christianity, the idea of God as the cosmic supplier is there. Oh, Father, thou art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name.
Give us our daily bread. Now, if we look at many of the mega-churches in America, to some extent even in Australia, also over here, that they, now the image of God that comes out is not of a cosmic supplier. It comes out of a cosmic therapist.
You go to God and you’ll become peaceful, your emotional wounds will be healed, you’ll become calm. So, now why? Because the Christians are also, you could say, rebranding God according to the need. Most of the Western world is relatively progressive and prosperous.
So, people are not worried about getting bread. They may be worried about getting butter. They may be worried about getting luxuries.
Necessity, they’re not worried about that so much. So, then we have to see what is the need of people. So, they find that what people need very much is mental peace, emotional healing.
And then they present God as a way to do that. And that is what attracts people. And that’s what people are flocking to, wherever they are coming, going to churches, they’re going for that purpose.
So, if you consider in our tradition, there’s yoga. Yoga is one of the most dramatic examples of how things can be completely changed in terms of how they are used. Traditionally, yoga is practised by male ascetics for renouncing the world.
Now, yoga is practised mostly by females for becoming fitter and more attractive. We may say, this is completely against the purpose of yoga. Yoga is, we may criticise, it is not meant for bodily consciousness and you’re more bodily conscious.
And we may say even yoga is not the central teaching of the Vedas. Anybody who’s practising yogi is deviating from the Vedas. All that is true at one level.
But actually, because of the practise of yoga, many people are becoming more and more open to Indian spirituality. How this yoga works? What is this yoga stuff about? It’s also manushyanaam sahasra issue. Maybe a thousand people will practise yoga for body improvement.
And out of that, one or ten may be interested in something philosophical. But even those thousand, they at least become favourable. So, most of the outreach to western people is happening today primarily through people who are interested in alternative lifestyles and alternative ways of doing things.
And one of them is yoga. So, in the Govinda Bhashya, that is Vedanta Sutra commentary by Baldevi Devoshi, there’s a whole section where Baldevi Devoshi criticises yoga. And there, why is he doing that? He’s saying that yoga is not the conclusion of the Vedas.
Vedanta is the conclusion. There are six schools of philosophy in the Vedic tradition. And he says yoga is not the conclusion.
It is Vedanta that is the conclusion. So, for that purpose, he’s criticising. But today, most people who practise yoga, they don’t practise yoga as a philosophy at all.
So, if we criticise yoga, then we simply alienate those people. They will be coming for bodily consciousness. But from their bodily consciousness, if they’re becoming favourable to Krishna, then we take them further towards Krishna.
So, this way, if we are sensitive to the context, sensitive to the context means sensitive to people’s needs, then we can present the central message in a way that can appeal to them and not alienate them. And that’s how we can bring people more and more closer to Krishna. That’s how Prabhupada also did.
When in the hippie age, he said that, you know, people wanted to go high by taking drugs. Prabhupada approved the message, stay high forever. Take Krishna consciousness and go high, never come down.
So, Prabhupada was an expert in presenting things according to time, place, circumstance. So, we have to use the context to present the central content. And if a context has changed, then what is the changed context? According to that, we present the central content.
And that’s how we will be able to connect ourselves and we will be able to connect others also. And we will ensure that we don’t bring unnecessary obstacles in people’s path to Krishna, but remove those obstacles so that they can come closer and closer to Krishna. So, I’ll conclude by summarising.
I spoke three main points. First is that we need to understand what is contextual and what is central in scripture. So, and the contextual should not be allowed to come in the way of the central.
So, in the Bhagavatam as well as the Chaitanya, Kaurava Vishnu literature about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s life, we see that the focus is on taking people to sattva to shuddha sattva. And for that, even sattva is trivialised. But sattva for most people is good.
It’s an evolution from tamas and rajas towards sattva. So, for somebody who is in tamas, coming to sattva is also good. If we demonise it or trivialise it, then people may not even come to sattva.
So, and criticism of sattva for people who appreciate sattva might seem too alienating for them because they may not appreciate shuddha sattva. So, contextual criticism should not be taken out of context. Where the Vedas are said to be misleading, you understand that for people who want to go towards the ultimate goal, they are misleading.
But for many others, they lead them to a higher level. That was the first point. Second point was that how do we understand the central message? We look at what is in the beginning, we look at what is in the end, we look at what is the, what is most repeated, what is most emphasised.
And that way the central message of Bhagavad Gita is not fight a war, it is to surrender to Krishna, to do Krishna’s will. And similarly, the central purpose of the Krishna Consciousness Movement is to encourage people to connect with Krishna, to become devoted to Krishna. And lastly, we need to understand our context so that we can present the central message most effectively.
So, how the Christians, instead of presenting God as the cosmic supplier, now present him as a cosmic therapist. Similarly, instead of saying that yoga has to be given up to practise bhakti, yoga is bodily consciousness, bhakti is Krishna Consciousness, we see yoga in today’s context is making people receptive to the broad body of spiritual knowledge. And thus yoga can become a tool for getting people to Krishna.
So, by understanding the context of people, we can present the content, the central message in a way that attracts them and doesn’t alienate them. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
Is there any one question? Okay. How do we reach out to Western audiences? It’s a big challenge and it’s an evolving process. Broadly speaking, that Prabhupada came to the West, which is primarily America, but whichever Western part is, he came at a very extraordinary time in Western history, the time of the counterculture.
So, Prabhupada never encountered the West as it normally was. And what worked in the time of the counterculture, because this is extraordinary when people were just rejected mainstream society and they were looking for something alternative. That is not what people are doing now.
So, what worked in an extraordinary time may not work in an ordinary time. So, therefore, we have to see that today people are not interested so much in rejecting their whole older way of life and taking up a new way of life. People are more interested in wisdom than religion.
So, there’s a whole group of people who call themselves spiritual, but not religious. SBNR, they say. And for many such people, we often appear more religious than spiritual.
Why? Because we have so many externals, which seem to mark us as belonging to a particular sect, a particular group. And that’s why it puts barriers on them. I was talking with one of the leaders in America.
So, they have a temple over there and they have like a big, like a small hall. So, the temple entrance and so the temple premises entrance to the temple sanctum sanctorum entrance. So, like you have over there, the main door and this door, he said.
So, for people to come from that door to this door, actually, they have to go through an ocean of misconceptions, misconceptions or preconceptions rather. It’s very difficult for them because in the so many things which they just, which trigger negative reactions within them. So, in general, presenting Krishna Bhakti more as wisdom, more as something which will, which doesn’t come off as so religious.
That is very helpful. So, presenting people places where they can get to hear the philosophy without necessarily making any religious commitment. That is what can help.
So, maybe yoga studios, where the atmosphere is not direct. It’s, it’s vibrant spiritually, but it doesn’t seem so religious over there. So, that’s one thing.
Another thing is that people don’t want to necessarily give up their existing identity. That means, say, if somebody is, is Australian, they don’t want to become an Indian per se. So, how much is the external, externals are essential, that has to be carefully discussed.
So, if you impose the contextual as the central, then that alienates people. But in general, the Western ethos is of, current ethos is largely of activism, of contribution. So, basically, you could present spirituality in three broad ways.
One is the relationship between spiritual world and material world. If material world is temporary, material life is temporary, just give it up and practise spiritual life. That’s rejection.
The second is that material life is good, but that won’t satisfy you. You need something more in your life. That is complementation.
Material life is good, but you need spiritual life also. And third, you could say, is improvement. That your spiritual life will improve your material life.
How is that? Say, for example, many people practise yoga and mindfulness. It’s some kind of spirituality. They think it is spirituality.
Why? Because helping them improve themselves materially. Maybe their physical health improves, their, they become more calm, they’re able to deal with stress better. So, for most people who come to spirituality, because we started at a time when the counterculture was there.
So, our mainstream presentation has always been the first, rejection. Reject material life and practise spiritual life. And it has very, very few takers.
Most people are not at that level of spiritual evolution. So, the second level is complementation. And that is where most Indians are.
Most Indians, they don’t want to reject material life to practise spiritual life. Material life is also important, but I want to practise spiritual life also. And that is where most of the movement is right now.
So, if we keep presenting that rejection model, then we alienate a lot of people. Because people are just not relevant to me. So, we can present, not in a very self-centred way, but to attract people, we need that third level.
How your spiritual practise can add value to your life right now, or add value to your contributions right now. So, for example, yoga, it improves health. If there is environmental consciousness, you can see how we, because of our practise of spirituality, we can live a more eco-friendly life.
So, if people feel that by joining something, they can do something constructive for the world, not just give up the world and go somewhere else. And not just get more people to join that movement. We may say we are doing good to the world, but how are we doing good to the world? Get more people to join.
That people are not interested. But something which can be tangibly seen as making contribution in the world. If you can show that to people and get people to connect over there, that is something which is quite attractive.
So, people have that activist tendency and that can be channelled. There is one devotee in LA, he was doing college programmes and he was inviting his, many students would come to the college and he was inviting them to come to the temple. But they would never come.
He said, we have a nice programme, we have kirtan, we have class. Then he told them that, you know, would you like to come this Sunday? We serve free food to 300 people. Would you like to come and volunteer to serve that food? So, 90% of the students came.
They did not come to hear the class, but they came to serve the free food. Because people want to do something. There was a devotee in New York, in New York area, they were a big congregation, but the children would not come to the temple much.
So, then they were trying to get the children to come to the temple. They said no. So, then the children were not small children, like teenagers.
So, then they said, can you, we want to make our temple green, eco-friendly. So, can you take the responsibility for that? Now, when they told that, there is a group of our 12 teen, 12 teenage kids, they all came and very eagerly they come to the temple. And they took the whole responsibility, all the prasadam plates, green, everything, all, we have minimised plastic bags and everything.
So, they come to the temple and then they see the darshan of the deity, they participate in the kirtan, sometimes they hear classes, but they need a sense of involvement. So, just doing something to transcend the world, that does not appeal to most people. So, it is also at different phases.
Generally, when we are young and are trying to establish ourselves in our career, in our lives, it is the third approach that appeals the most. Okay, spirituality can add value to my life, it can improve, help me do things better. When a person comes to the level of 40, 45, when they are reasonably established in their lives, then they realise, okay, I got some success, but it is not really satisfying.
There has to be something more in my life. That is when the complementation approach starts making sense. And the rejection approach, maybe since somebody says you have got cancer, you are going to die in six months.
So, we have to present spirituality in a way that can make sense to people, can appeal to people, can register within their current concerns. So, if it registers within their current concern, then they will take it up.